harryc1989 wrote:The UK has arguably the best trained navy in the world, certainly better trained than the US and French navy. Man for man, the royal navy is the most powerful navy in the world.

As an ex USN submariner, this is to me complete hogwash. I don't believe it for a minute and have to wonder where you got this idea other than perhaps British PR. My personal experience certainly suggests otherwise.

While this doesn't address the "best trained" argument it certainly brings into question the "strongest". Furthermore looking at the equipment the heaviest weapon listed for the Royal Marines are 81mm mortars and some LAVs. Looking at the same for the USMC one finds things like 155mm howitzers, M1A1 tanks, and variety of aircraft.

Well it might come down to how it was defined. For instance I suspect that USMC tankers, artillery, and pilots are better trained for that role than Royal Marines are likely to be if for no other reason than those aren't functions that the Royal Marines seem to have. I suspect there may be some other areas where the Royal Marines are better. Medics for instance (assuming the USMC still relies on the Navy for them) where the same logic as above would apply.

Royal Navy comes in at second place for now. But the RN needs a serious turn around and support from the Government.

Britain can do with-out a large Army or Air Force, after all our air force is already 1,100+ strong some 300 aircraft more the France!!!!! Our Army like-wise is several 1,000 troops stronger than France.Britain 114,400 Regulars, 35,500 TAs (part time troops)France 112,800 Regulars, 16,000 (part time troops)

5 sloops, Light Frigates, FFL, Frigate escort or what ever its name. (this would prevent the RN having to deploy a sophisticated Frigate to patrol waters in low combat areas, thus less pressure on the navy's work-house)

when the 4 SSBN Vanguards need replacing, replace them with an upgraded lengthen'd astute design, then this would also allow the remaining 4 Trafalgar class SSNs to be replaced by another 4 upgraded version of astute. This would reduce costs of Trident and give the RN 12 astute SSns.

This is what the RN needs, and it can be done with an extra £3 billion on the defence budget from now to 2015. By 2020 you would want a £60-65 billion defence budget, up from £40 billion in 2010. All it would take is some balls from our politicians.

And what is likely to happen is a reduction in high price items such as fast jets and tanks in favor of what the troops in Afghanistan and similar wars need.

I'm expecting a similar retrenchment in the USA over the next 10 years or so. Reduced number of CVNs and other big ticket items in favor of maintaining the ability to maintain an anti Taliban type force indefinitely and reduce the budget deficit.

We either do it soon or it will eventually be forced by hyper inflation.

AngloSaxonVangaurd wrote:This is what the RN needs, and it can be done with an extra £3 billion on the defence budget from now to 2015. By 2020 you would want a £60-65 billion defence budget, up from £40 billion in 2010. All it would take is some balls from our politicians.

Now here I can fully agree, together with strong ground and air forces.

However I don't expect our new coalition government, let alone Labour opposition to grasp that nettle. Their objectives are more orientated towards an ''ever closer European Union'' which means eventual EU control of whatever armed forces we have, in support of whatever EU foreign policy is decided now that the Lisbon Treaty is coming into force.

AngloSaxonVangaurd wrote:Britain can do with-out a large Army or Air Force......

I am glad that this mantra did not apply in 1940. Britain cannot rely on its navy as its only substantial armed force, now as well as then.

Britain needs and Army and Air force, but as it stands they are large enough already, only the navy needs boosting, thus any budget increace should mostly be spent towards the Navy.

The Tories are more anti-EU than Labour, a Tory government wouldnt surrender our armed forces to the EU command. Tories will also protect defence spending for the FY 2010/11. Liam Fox is also very pro navy.

AngloSaxonVanguard, firstly our Army is already overstretched with its existing commiments, quite apart from the recent allegations of inadequate equipment and protection for our soldiers in Afghanistan. It requires more resources and funding NOW.

As for the Tories - they are in reality as pro -EU as Labour and the LibDems. They like to portray themselves as ''eurosceptic'' purely to fool voters inclined that way to vote for them. But ask them a serious question about the EU and you will discover that the real Tory agenda is to win office at all costs - they will give you a load of spin about not ceding any more power to the EU, but to them the idea of Britain being a self governing nation is laughable. When I asked them specifically on this point the Tory activist I was trying to speak to burst out laughing!Handing over our armed forces to EU control is in the Lisbon Treaty. The Tories now accept that treaty without challenge, having previously in Opposition promised us a referendum on the subject.What the Tories hate are parties like UKIP exposing the fact they are pro EU and are being deceitful about it. David Canmeron, our new Prime Minister, was the chief advisor to Norman Lamont, Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the Maastricht Treaty, and in that capacity wrote a policy note to then Prime Minister John Major advising that Britain should join the Euro immediately on its inception. Something that he keeps very quiet about now. I suspect that one long term aim of this new coalition government is to join the Euro eventually. They say they won't do it in this parliament, we shall see. I wouldn't trust anything they say on that subject.

Liam Fox pro - Navy? His first loyalty is to his party. See what he actually does, rather than what he says.

RF wrote:AngloSaxonVanguard, firstly our Army is already overstretched with its existing commiments, quite apart from the recent allegations of inadequate equipment and protection for our soldiers in Afghanistan. It requires more resources and funding NOW.

As for the Tories - they are in reality as pro -EU as Labour and the LibDems. They like to portray themselves as ''eurosceptic'' purely to fool voters inclined that way to vote for them. But ask them a serious question about the EU and you will discover that the real Tory agenda is to win office at all costs - they will give you a load of spin about not ceding any more power to the EU, but to them the idea of Britain being a self governing nation is laughable. When I asked them specifically on this point the Tory activist I was trying to speak to burst out laughing!Handing over our armed forces to EU control is in the Lisbon Treaty. The Tories now accept that treaty without challenge, having previously in Opposition promised us a referendum on the subject.What the Tories hate are parties like UKIP exposing the fact they are pro EU and are being deceitful about it. David Canmeron, our new Prime Minister, was the chief advisor to Norman Lamont, Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the Maastricht Treaty, and in that capacity wrote a policy note to then Prime Minister John Major advising that Britain should join the Euro immediately on its inception. Something that he keeps very quiet about now. I suspect that one long term aim of this new coalition government is to join the Euro eventually. They say they won't do it in this parliament, we shall see. I wouldn't trust anything they say on that subject.

Liam Fox pro - Navy? His first loyalty is to his party. See what he actually does, rather than what he says.

Hope your wrong mate. Just how can we go from Sir W.Churchill 65 years ago to the shit we have now? Its dreadful. I hope David Cameron has grown a pair of balls now and will act on his anti EU agenda. Tories did create a new euro-sceptic group in the EU parliament saying the right-wing parties of Europe are becoming to pro-EU. Plus its widely known the Tory party still has a large strong right-wing force in place that are very euro-sceptic. Given that the Tories cannot ever become truly pro-EU with-out making a considerable amount of its MPs very angry. Thatcher openly said she is now anti-EU and wished she never joined the EEC.

Your last post AngloSaxonVanguard, is sadly very wide of the mark. The Conservative Party has been pro-EU since the days that Ted Heath, a Tory Prime Minister, took Britain into the EEC in the early 1970's. In those days most of the Tory right that later backed Margaret Thatcher also fully supported EEC membership, believing that it was a trading block with no substantial political agenda. How wrong they, and Margaret Thatcher were!

In the 1975 referendum on EEC continued membership, some 85% of Tory voters backed EEC membership. Some 70% of Liberals did, along with 55% of Labour voters. Only the SNP voters rejected the EEC, and that was by a very narrow margin. Willie Whitelaw at the time said that the Conservatives were the ''most pro-Europe party.'' They were.

Those Conservatives genuinely opposed to the EU such as Enoch Powell left the Tory Party, others such as Neil Marten and Teddy Taylor carried on but were in a marginalised minority until they retired. The impotence of the Tory Right in opposing the EU was shown in their absolute failure to block the Maastricht Treaty. Whatever grass roots Tories might feel, the Party leadership decides policy and rigorously applies party loyalty. And as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher fully supported European integration, focussing only on getting a rebate on the membership fee, in spite of what she claims now. If Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit are so anti EU as they now say they are, why didn't they take Britain out when they had ten years in which to do so, while in office?

Cameron does not have an anti-EU Aagenda. He has regular meetings with the EU Commission leader Barosso, which are never mentioned in the British media. The new grouping the Conservative MEP's belong to in the European Parliament is as pro EU as the previous group, the European People's Party. Why didn't the Conservatives join the EDD group that UKIP belongs to? Because they support the EU, they don't oppose it.

quod erat demonstrandum means: 'that which was to be demonstrated'; quod = which, erat =was, demonstrandum is a gerundive, hence the to be demonstrated. This phrase is commonly used at the end of a mathematical proof. E.g. I prove the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, and end it with Q.E.D., standing for quod erat demonstrandum. The intended effect in the post was no doubt 'precisely my point'; a clever riposte, I appreciate it.Reading through the previous posts, I've noticed the mentioning of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela - which begs the question - how is it in any way relevant to the discussion? Obviously numbers are not everything, but it has a total of 50 vessels (including submarines), most of which comprises patrol boats. It has four submarines, all from the seventies, and only seven operational 'large' surface combatants (in relative terms to other vessels in its arsenal), all of which come below the 3000 tons mark, and all but one of which dates back to the early eighties. Not bad compared to some other Latin American countries, but is way out of its league against the top 10 most powerful navies in the world.I shall assume 'powerful' denotes the ranking of each navy in a head-to-head situation (note that while the comments only refer to the Navy immediately above, in fact I have compared and accounted for all possible pairings). Moreover, the rankings are based on the status quo and makes no provisions for the future.1.United States Navy2.Russian Navy - Obviously no match for the United States Navy - a number of vessels are nearing obsolescence, and poor maintenance of a number of vessels reduce their combat effectiveness.3.Royal Navy - The two active Invincible class carriers compare disfavourably with the Admiral Kuznetsov Class - likewise, the principal surface combatants are slightly inferior. Technology is similar, and training perhaps slightly superior to that of the Russian Navy. Superior amphibious capability, and similar capabilities in submarine warfare. Overall numbers (of minimal significance) similar and only marginally smaller.4.Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force - Second largest navy in Asia, extremely modern, and technology is at least on par with the Royal Navy. Vessels excellently maintained and professionally crewed. Marginally surface combatants compared to Royal Navy, inferior amphibious and submarine warfare capabilities. Helicopter carrier as opposed to a 'true' aircraft carrier.5.French Navy - Nearly as modern as No.4, and boasts comparable levels of technology. Surface combatants slightly outclassed although powerful new vessels are being launched. Superior submarine capabilities, marginally inferior amphibious capabilities.

Yes, the Charles De Gaulle class is in still in service. However, note that all the navies ranked above France, with the notable exception of the Japanese, do have comparable aircraft carriers. The reason that I've ranked the French Navy as fifth and not fourth is because the JMSDF have just finished launching a set of principal surface combatants as recently as five years ago. The French Navy have just begun launching their newest - i.e. just beginning to introduce a new generation. If the comparison was made ten years ago, or five to ten years from now, the French Navy would have taken fourth place. As it is though, the JMSDF have the more modern navy, and my ranking is based on the present, not the past or the future.